I know nothing about this writer or his affiliations. But, as well as his entire tone throughout the article, alarms bells rang when he brought up the matter of legalised euthanasia and from this extrapolated "death tourism".

I'm also confused: his para." The Swiss Constitution requires respect for "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms"." leads one to believe the quote comes from the actual constitution to which he provides a link. Did anyone find it there? I read through it, including the recent amendments, and could find no words matching the quote. Can anyone tell me where it is?

I was not much surprised that when he provided links to a "paper" that had been released: " The body in charge of interpreting this Delphic phrase, the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, has just released a discussion paper about the dignity of plants. In due course its astonishing conclusions could become law." - it turned out in fact to be a short clip out of a newspaper and the last sentence merely an hyperbolic extension of his own fancy.

Silly article.

"The Swiss need to recover the conviction that human beings deserve a special status because they are unique in the universe, the only beings with reason and free will."

It has been well proven that many animals are endowed with reason and free will. The fact is that we are no Dr Doolittles and we cannot easily communicate with other species. Where we have put in the effort and taught apes and parrots human communication they were well capable of reason and making their own choices.

Good on the Swiss for allowing humans to die a humane death and extending a right to dignity to other species.

I don't know which planet Mr Cook is from but it can't be ours.

You cannot believe how HILARIOUS I find this whole thing :)

"the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology, has just released a discussion paper about the dignity of plants. In due course its astonishing conclusions could become law."

Plants? yikes.. I can see this is really a Fundy Christian plot for genocide of the Vegetarians :)

Strange as it might seem, I don't find the issue of how to keep social animals much of a problem. I rather agree that if they are social, they should have a buddy.. or not be kept at all.

SOCIAL PHARISEES... aaah yes..thats the next danger in all this.
The religious pharisees of Jesus day had sooooo many rules about what is 'work' and non work, that they made the Australian Tax LIBrary look like a cheap comic by comparison.

We will end up with laws trying to cover every aspect of human behavior...ooh..NOWWWWW I see it :) actually its a 'sneaky MUSLIM plot to prepare us all for Sharia ....yes...I'm joking.

Dignity? hmmmm I could make a lot out of that. Dignity to feel safe and free and unthreatened in your own culture? yep.. truckloads to work with there.

For some reason this article reminded me of the line in "Notting Hill" - the fruitarian around the dinner table talking about only eating fruit that has "actually fallen from the tree...that is, it is actually already dead" or words to that effect.

Hard to take this article seriously. There is nothing wrong with humans (as beings with reason and free will) ensuring that other living organisms like goldfish are not just mere decorations or amusements without thought to how goldfish might live in the 'natural state'.

I would argue this is not about 'dignity' which would simply be a human interpretation or transference of human thoughts or philosophies to a fish, but about cruelty. Human beings allocate themselves certain rights so what is inherently wrong with allocating certain rights to animals to ensure we 'higher beings' do not inflict pain on the innocent and powerless.

If we accept we are higher beings because of the ability to reason, then we also have responsibilities that come with the burden of our potential impact on the environment around us - whether it be pollution, deforestation or...treatment of a goldfish.

This responsibility is not confined to Sweden but to many other nations like Australia - there are laws governing cruelty to animals (albeit somewhat slow on the uptake for live animal exports and battery hens) for which you can be jailed in the most heinous cases or fined.

What is the author's objective or intent? Is it a warning about threats to civil liberties or dire warnings of a looming big brother? If it is, then I could think of better scenarios than the ones posed.

Despite the polemical tone of this piece, you'll probably find that the Swiss are Neutral on this issue.

Dear Ho Hum....

Please don't describe the most central event in history, from which we define time, as a:

"grotesque exercise in violent sado-masochistic pornography The Passion of Christ."

You are getting VERY close to the line if not already crossed it legally.

You are holding up the most precious saving event to public scorn and ridcule.. in fact.. yes.. absolutely ...you HAVE crossed that line.

You have not only ignored Jesus own predictions of his death, his willingness to suffer for our sakes, but you have re-construed it in a manner which can in no way be connected to the reported facts.

There was nothing in the slightest 'pornographic' about the movie, by any stretch of the imagination. So.. one can only conclude that you have indulted in 'hate speech' against Christians.

You know as well as I do, that 'pornography' is related to prurient interest and involves the gratuitous, in your face display of sexual activity.

SUCH as....this:

<<Known for sexually charged hits like "Bump N' Grind," Kelly, 41, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with a girl as young as 13>>

Now.. HO HUM... just so you appreciate the dire seriousness of what you have said. I suggest you goto the Lakemba Mosque or.. IISNA...or the Preston Mosque in Melbourne, and make the same statements about Islam and the Quran.. in a loud voice.

Then, after you get out of intensive care, and have a moment to reflect, be thankful that the worst that any serious Christian would do, is take you to the EOC for the purpose of having you place large advertisements of apology in newspapers at your own cost, for vilifiying our faith.

Perhaps the best thing of all though, would be simple repentance and ask the One you have insulted and vilified for direct forgiveness.
And if you think that's laughable.. you have then answered the question "why do we have laws".
Your apology is awaited.